The countdown is almost at an end. My last blog on The Shinning wasn't particular well written and was a huge wall of text!

So, I thought I will change the format here... To make it more accessible and more interesting.

What I did here, instead of simply writing about what I like about the movie and its (A Clockwork Orange) hidden narrative, I will turn it into an interview with the director.

The Interview (my views)

Thomas: Mr Kubrick, I am a huge fan of your work. At the moment, I am writing an online blog, a countdown of your top 5 films. In particular, I've selected A Clockwork Orange (ACO)as my No. 2 since I felt in ways, ACO's hidden narrative was clearly visible - in fact, I think you have been pretty straight with your message which is rare in your films.

Kubrick: Well, A Clockwork Orange was adaptation on Anthony Burgess's book published in 1962. It was given to me by Terry Couthern while I was making 2001: A Space Odyssey. One evening, I started to read the book and finished it in one sitting. By the end of Part One, it seemed pretty obvious that it might make a great film. The so-called hidden narrative is pretty much what's in the novel.

Thomas: So, are you saying the film itself is very close to what's in Anthony Burgess's novel?

Kubrick: Yes. By the end of Part Two, I was very excited about it. As soon as I finished it, I immediately reread it. For the next 2 or 3 days, I reread it in hole and in part, and did little else but think about it.

Thomas: What makes such novel so attracted to you. Your full concentrations and rereading such novel in whole and in part?

Kubrick: Firstly, it seemed to me to be a unique and marvellous work of imagination and perhaps even genius. Secondly, the narrative invention was magical, the characters were bizarre and exciting, the ideas were brilliantly developed.

Thomas: At what point did you think you can turn this into a film?

Kubrick: Well, as equally as important as those aspects I pointed it out earlier, the story was of a size and density that could be adapted to film without oversimplifying it or stripping it to the bones. In fact it proved possible to retain most of the narrative in the film.

Thomas: From what I have gathered by watching the films more than 10 times, the stylisation of the violence is very comedic and what actually happens to Alex, in the brainwashing sequence, is much more unpleasant to watch then what he does to anyone else, especially his victims.

Kubrick: Violence in the film is stylized, just as in the book. The problem, of course, was to find a way to presenting it in the film without benefit of writing s tyle. To preserve the realistic of the violence on film, a sense of irony has to be achieved and in ways, it turns out to be rather comedic - Such as the first section of the film that incorporates most of the violent action is principally organised around the Overture to Rossini's Thieving Magpie, and in a very broad sense, you could say that the violence is turned into dance, although, of course, it is in no way any kind of formal dance.

Thomas: I see but what about Alex's brainwashing sequence. In ways, since it was much more unpleasant to watch than what Alex did to his victims - Are you saying the government is as bad as Alex and in ways, is Alex society in general?

Kubrick: Such narrative you have drawn up yourself and since film experience is much closer to dream then anything else. In this daydream, If you like, one can explore ideas and situations which one is not able to do in reality.

Thomas: So is governmental control, as part of the narratives in A Clockwork Orange a way of expressing a concern in reality?

Kubrick: First of all, I don't choose stories as political tracts. The fact that A Clockwork Orange has such overtone and narrative is mainly because of Burgess's novel happens to be about something that now happens to be particularly topical - Behavioural psychology and the conditioning of antisocial behaviour, with its particular relevance to psychologist Skinner's book.

Thomas: Can you elaborate on the narrative of governmental control inA Clockwork Orange?

Kubrick: Is a question of how authority can cope with problems of law and order without becoming too oppressive, and, more particularly, in relation to the ever-increasing view that politics are irrelevant to the solution of social problems, that there's no time for political and legal solutions, that social issues have to be solved immediately even if this means going outside law and politics. "What solutions authority may be evolve concerns me, and is one of the great unanswered social problems."

Thomas: Alex in the film and novel, is a evil person but when compared to the government's treatment, in ways, you have turned him into a victim. In that context, Alex becomes the hero and the government becomes the villains in ACO... Is that how you intended it?

Kubrick: You can't really put it that way. it's a satire, which is to say that you hold up current vices and folly to ridicule. You pretend to say the opposite of the truth in order to destroy it. The essential moral of the story hinges on the question of choice and the question of whether man can be good without having the choice to be evil and whether a creature who no longer has this choice is still a man.

Thomas: By that, do you mean the choice of hero and villian is an illusion?

Kubrick: No. What I mean is the fact Alex is the very personification of evil and is still in some strange way attractive due to several things: His honesty, his lack of hypocrisy, his energy and his intelligence. In the course of the A clockwork Orange, eventually, you begin to sympathize with Alex because you begin to identify with him as a victim of a much greater evil. Perhaps, more importantly, we recognize our own subconsious. This may also account for some of the antagonism the film has created. The subconsious has no conscience - and preception of this makes some people very anxious and angry.

Thomas: By making Alex attractive, in ACO, you have been criticised for making evil attractive so as to make your point wiht even the most extreme exmaple?

Kubrick: If Alex were a lesser villain, then you would dilute the point of the film. It would then be like one of those westerns where they purport to be doing a film which is against lynching and so they lynch innocent people. The point of the film seems to be: You shouldn't lynch people because you might lynch innocent people; rather than: You shouldn't lynch anybody. Obviously, if Alex were a lesser villian, it would be very easy to reject his 'treatment'. But when you reject the treatment of even a character as wicked as Alex the moral point is clear.

Thomas: Well thank you for you time Mr Kubrick.

Kubrick: Thank you. How about a game of Chess?

Thomas: Until next time. :P

Understanding This Blog.

The Shining has to be one of the most unique horror films I've ever seen. First of all, again, reminding who ever is reading that these countdown on Kubrick's films are more about the hidden narrative than the main storyline itself. So, let's begin.

THE SHINING

The hidden narrative in THE SHINING is: there are no ghosts; the hotel isn't haunted. One of the main narrative is domestic violence. I know it will be fairly controversial for me and please understand I am not making a statement but just an opinion on Kubrick's direction of the film. So, don't flame me. Okay? :P

There Are No Ghost!

Yes. No ghost. let me explain why there's no ghost nor the hotel itself is haunted. How do we came to the idea of the hotel being haunted? Well it was by the hotel manager telling the newly employed winter caretaker, Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson), that the previous caretaker had gone crazy and murdered his family: His wife and two daughters, age 8 and 10. He went on to say that the hotel was built upon an Indian burial site (this theme is unique to the film as it was not in Stephen King's The Shining novel which, the film was based). This is a way Kubrick telling us allot of people die here thusplayeda trick in our mind that the hotelcan be haunted.

So, Kubrick had pretty much followed the novel's haunted hotel plot but the similarity ends there. By the first time when the audience saw what appears to be the ghosts of the murdered little girls in the playroom, we assumed they were the one that the manager talked about however, they were twins. Now, remember the hotel manager told Jack the two murdered girls were age 8 and 10... Not twins. Also, the twin girls doesn't look Indian either therefore are not ghosts from the burial site where the hotel were built.

So... Who are the twins? - Well, first, a way of Kubrick mocking the audience attention and how easily we can be tricked into thinking there are ghosts inside the hotel. Secondly, where does it fit in the story line of Kubrick's The Shining? - The Twins are a symbolic representation of Jack's wife, Wendy and son, Danny.

Later, when the new caretaker, Jack Torrance went in the Gold Room in the hotel, sat at the bar wanted a drink and found nobody was there then Jack covered his face in disappointment... suddenly, a bartender appeared - That has to be a ghost, right? Well, not exactly. Why? - Behind the Bartender there was a mirror, a mirror reflecting Jack's own reflection... meaning, Jack was seeing himself and talking to himself and not to a ghost. Also, the Bartender's clothing colour mirrored what Jack's wearing at the time thus further indicating Jack was talking to his reflection. Considering that, every time when Jack seems to be talking to a ghost, there's always a mirror in front of Jack, reflecting his reflection. So why would Jack talk to himself believing he was talking to someone else or even a ghost? The answer is simple, he was drunk and he is an alcoholic (which later, fits in with the domestic violence theme).

Much later in the film, the twins reappears in a hall way where Jack's son, Danny were playing. It is one of the most iconic scene for a Horror Movie - The Twins standing motionless in the hallway, holding each other's hand saying "come play with us Danny". Now, if you look at the wallpaper, you can see the parterns of the wallpaper formed an endless question marks '?', Kubrick again telling us to 'question' whether these twin girls are ghosts or just a vivid imagination of Danny. Of course, I've already established that the twin girls are symbolic representation of Danny and his mother - As Danny can sensed the danger being locked inside a grand hotel with his drunken father.

Danny's Domestic Violence

Of course, you can now point out the woman/old woman in the infamous room 234. Surely, that has to be a ghost. Once again, not exactly. That scene where Jack walks into room 234, saw the naked woman in the bathroom, gestured him to her and they embraced then suddenly the naked woman transformed into an ugly old woman is a symbolic representation of Jack's abusive (even sexual) behaviour towards his own son, Danny. How? Well one very obvious indication is when Jack were shocked to see the ugly old woman and tried to get away, the audience are seeing from Jack's point of view, the angle of the camera were lowered thus the camera position is looking upward to the ugly old woman like a child!

In conjunction to the paragraph above, you may ask, why are we seeing Jack instead of Danny then? well, the answer is simple: Danny were dreaming. The entire scene of room 234 is a dream sequence. Where Danny placed himself as his abuser (common for victim of abuse and domestic violence) and the naked woman were actually Danny's father, Jack suggesting a sexual gesture. Then of course, to Danny, such an act was horrific and traumatic thus the transformation of naked woman into an ugly old woman. Danny saw the true ugliness of his father.

Then there is the wife. Wendy Torrance (played by Shelley Duvall) was weak minded and in way, scared of her husband. This is very different from King's version of Mrs Torrance in the book where she is strong and a lovely wife. Such difference from Kubrick's version has only one explanation, he wanted the domestic violence hidden narrative to be more visible. That's not all, of course. Once Particular scene where Jack, her husband was working on his novel, Shelly, his wife walked in and asked how he was doing? Immediately, Jack was so annoyed, snapped and shouting at Shelly for disturbing him... She was just there for a second, not long, just a second. How annoyed can you get? Such agressive behaviour isvery similar to actual behaviour of an abusive husband in a domestic violence case. Of course, this wouldn't go unnotice to Danny.

More is more.

There are allot more hidden narratives and symbolic theme in The Shining which would be too much to explain in just one blog. However, it is not the point of such a blog therefore if you want to discuss certain scenes or theme or object, even/// You can post it in your comment or PM me. I will do my best to reply asap. :)

Anyway... Continuing on. My final thought. Kubrick is telling us that domestic violence can go unnoticed as he had hidden such narrative within The Shining. When watching the film, not paying careful attention, such can turn a blind eye towards domestic violence. Of course, is an issue which isnot a simple task to just see it and do something about it but rather... Kubrick wants us to be more observant and seek what's hidden around you and yourself only then, we can in some way act upon it.

Thanks for reading.

Thomas

As a straight forward war movie Full Metal Jacket is immensely popular, yet artistically it's one of Kubrick's least understood films. There are several reasons for this. The mega box office and critical success of Oliver Stone's Platoon preceded Full Metal Jacket's release by almost a full year. Several inferior Vietnam war films were quickly being released in an attempt to cash in on Platoon's success, and it was under these circumstances that Full Metal Jacket made it's debut. Fortunately, Kubrick's film had two obvious things to offer that Platoon lacked. The first was its hilarious dialogue, especially drill instructor Hartman's rapid-fire insults, and second was its dynamic and varied action set pieces. It also lacked the obvious and well-trodden "horrors of war" emphasis and moral assertions usually associated with acclaimed war films (Platoon pulled this off well, but Apocalypse Now had already been there and back almost twenty years earlier). In fact Full Metal Jacket's pacing and style are more akin to the highly commercial and entertaining WW2 action film The Dirty Dozen.

The one aspect of Full Metal Jacket that has brought artistic praise is its no holds barred critique of military brainwashing. Again this was lacking in Oliver Stone's Platoon and helped distance the two films from each other. The physical and emotional pummeling of the lovable Private Leonard Lawrence into a psychotic and suicidal wreck is thoroughly convincing and packs just as strong an emotional punch as any of Platoon's themes. If the cadet training section of Full Metal Jacket had itself been fleshed out into a standalone movie then the critics would have applauded loudly and in unison.

Instead Kubrick shifts the story straight into the chaos of the Vietnam war, as if we had finished watching one film and then started another. The film maintains its humour, but drags us through a confusing narrative mess that is very entertaining, but seemingly absent of purpose. Joker's final dilemma, in which he must find the strength to perform the mercy killing of a female NVA sniper, is strangely unsatisfying. It doesn't seem to justify the rest of the war zone narrative.

This is not unusual in Kubrick's work. Many of his films have stirred up controversy and negative emotion, while refusing to offer obvious moral condolence – A Clockwork Orange and Lolita being the most obvious examples. The key factor is that Kubrick didn't make films to comfort his audience. His intention was to challenge us – to present us with philosophical puzzles and dilemmas. He challenges us to earn narrative condolences by flexing our mental muscles and thinking deeply about the film experience.

It hard to explained fully what Kubrick's hidden narrative to be in the Full Metal Jacket. For one, as obvious as it it, about the brainwashing the military do to strip away not only your identity but also your will... You may argued that is necessary in war but looking at it in a different angle, you will see there's plenty of subliminal messages from advertisement or government telling us how to dress, how to behave, how to travel, where to eat etc...As it appears choice is only an illusion. You're not actually making a free choice but a given choice.

(information from Rob Agerwww.collativelearning.com)

Thanks for reading. :)

This is the first of 5 blogs on my top five Stanley Kubrick films.

Before I begin - Stanley Kubrick is one of a kind director. His films are unique and were ahead of its time thus the immediate criticisms then the latter recognitions for his genius. No director has come close to his abilities to deliver something more. At least not yet. Many of Stanley Kubrick's films had a hidden narrative to the main story. In a form of subliminal message which, Kubrick himself will want you to discover yourself. This will also explain the lack of interviews and even when there is, he would rarely explain his approach or mention the hidden narrative.

Well, my explanation of each top 5 films will concentrate on the subliminal message more rather then the main story line. With that in mind let's begin.

EYES WIDE SHUT (1999)

This is Kubrick's last masterpiece, he died shortly after making this film in 1999. Staring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Before his untimely death, Kubrick said this movie was his greatest work. However, after Kubrick's death, the studio re-edited the film thus Kubrick's true vision and version of the film isn't realised. It was also rumoured that Kubrick was assassinated by a shadowy group becuase in Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick's hidden narrative had exposed such a group... However, it is just a rumour but, to this date, there are still no director's cut of this film.

Ironically, even re-edited version, Eyes Wide Shut deal with how people appears on the surface isn't how that are deep down. Beneath the surface, their own reflection can be ugly and nasty in terms of behaviours and practises. Kubrick wanted us to see the world without it's coating: the bright shiny lights. the advertisements, the skyscraper, the expensive decorative which, blinding us not allowing us to see the world it hide inside. Considering such point, throughout the film, Kubrick's had Tom Cruise discovered his world is not what he sees... What he discovered beneath the surface (the lies)were the true ugliness of the world and the people around him.

All thing considered, Kubrick also telling us before Tom's discovery, we, the audience and Tom are all EYES WIDE SHUT. We were blinded by the glamour. The answers were in front of us. Like in the beginning of the film, at a very expensive Christmas party, Tom's rich friend asked him to tend to an overdosed prostitute in his glamorous bathroom but we and Tom think nothing of it. Why? Becuase of the bright rich lights and expensive decorative; The so-called high-society, we were blind it by it. Later, at a dark and gloommy castle-like mansion, Tom discovered this rich friend of his belongs to this cult where they have a mass sexual intercourse with women whom seem to be drugged. Then we realised something is wrong.

Last but not least, Kubrick also wanted to realised the most important message in the film. We too, are also coated. We don't show who we really are. Like in the final scene of Eyes Wide Shut, Tom walks into the his bedroom, dark without the bright light saw his wife sleeping on the bed, he also notice a mask lying on his pillow but when his wife woke up, she pays no attention to the mask as if Tom had in-visualised the mask (the lies) he were wearing (telling), hiding who he is not just the people around him. Tom broke down in tears.

In conclusion: We can see the world's ugliness and others around us but we must also realised how ugly we are in order to have our EYES WIDE OPEN and not SHUT. Such powerful hidden narrative earned its place as No.5 of my top 5 Stanley Kubrick's films.

Thanks for reading and until next time.

Thomas

If Birthday candles are for people who want to make light of their age... then it will have 26 on my Birhtday cake. Yes, is my birhtday. Not really sure what I will be doing but my grilfriend said she had it all planned out. And I am scare. lol. :P

Well, as you get older and older, birthday is less and less of an important until you are old or close enough to die. You know, like how they make a big fuss about your 80th Birthday or 90th or even 100th. It is so ironic that the closer you are to death the more important your BIRTH day is. lol. :P

Anyway...That's about it really. Nothing much until my next blog and boy, it will be a very long one. Entitled 'My Top 5 Stanley Kubrick films'. Yes, I couldn't get enough of his movie and I pondered a long time to decide my top 5 films from this geniusfilm director.

In the mean time, here's a bit more English related stuff:

ENUFF IS ENUFF!

Did you know that more than one-theth of English words are not spelled the way they sound? Try the letter combination 'ough' out for size:

A rought-coated, dough-faced, thoughful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed.

A basic guild to the pronunciation of each word follows:

Rough as in 'puff'

dough as in 'oh'

thoughful as in 'port'

ploughman as in 'thou'

through as in 'too'

Scarborogh as in 'curragh'

slough as in 'buff'

coughed as in 'soft'

hiccoughed as in 'cupped'

Well, Thanks for reading and until next time. :)

Next blog: My Top 5 Stanley Kubrick films.

Where does the difference between the past and the future come from?

The laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the future. Yet there is a big difference berween the past and the future in ordinary life.

You may see a cup of tea fall off of a table and break into pieces on the floor. But you will never see the cup gather itself back together and jump back on the table.

The increase of disorder or entropy is what distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.

My direction: Here. My time: Present. Disordering the flow to distinguish my past: Busy from my future: Free.

Yes. I am Back.

Thanks for reading. Until next time. Soon. :P

Well, well... Looks like workload is finally dying down. Meaning, I'll be returning soon. Just a few more things to tie up and come September, I will be back to my usual self. Woo hoo. :P

EUPHEMISMS FOR BEING A LTTILE CRAZY

Work, many are a letter short of a word, that's why I was so busy. Many people involved are not the sharpest pencil in the case. Many times, in a meeting, the light's on, but nobody's home. A few is nutty as a fruit cake and edited to nothing. Eventually, having working with these people whom I never worked with before (don't want to again) is a sandwich short of a picnic.

When is time to get work done with a client, many, again, is a word short of a sentence. A few had some pages missing and even permanently out to lunch (in world of their own). Causing many confusion which, was unnecessary. Just like all ink,no pen. On any given particular day, the slacker would be not all there. All in all, such experience is like knitting with only one needle.

Thank god is over. lol. :P

Thanks for reading and see you all really soon. :)

Thomas.

Well, workload is pretty much the same. No sign of the work decreasing.I guess this is making up for all those free time I had before. :P Meaning, I still will not be active and I am very sorry. Thanks to all those people who'd commented on my last two blogs. Very grateful since I don't have the time reply back. :)

I honestly don't know when I can have more time to myself and be the Thomas you knew. In the meantime, I can only treat? Torment? Annoy, even? With more of my English related 'Stuff'. lol. :P

So, anyway, here's more of the 'English related stuff'

EXPLAIN THYSELF AGAIN

It's time to face up, again, to the true sense behind some of the things we say, but don't actually mean.

All things consider - I've just come up with this

Allegedly - what I am saying is true, but I don't want to be sued

Apparently - I've just heard an urban myth

Basically - this is going to get complicated

Coincidentally - my sotry is unoriginal

Essentially - unimportantly

Well, that is is for this blog. Hope to see you guys real soon. Until next time and thanks for reading.

Thomas

P.S. If you guys have time, you should read Thomas Harris's novels. You might watched the films such as Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal etc... But the books are, allegedly much, MUCH better! All things considered, never an author can captured me with their sentences so vividly. Basically delightful to read where the books will take you on a breathtaking psychological thriller ride. Paced to perfection. Coincidentally, I find myself not driving to work but to take public transport so I can have some time to read it (Apparently my only free time). Although, a word of warning, essentially, strictly 18s only. Seriously.

Hey there... Is Thomas Crown. Well, I am still rather busy, so I will not be as active as I was. Although on my last blog, I said something along the lines that I had two more weeks then I should be back to my usual self. However, that is not the case, evidently. I have no idea when the work load will decrease, hopefully, the sooner the better. :P

Anyway... Just want to show my face and making sure you people don't forget me. lol. :P So, to make my reappearance more memorable, here's a few thing people said in a court of law. They are real, not fakes even though some sound pretty stupid. Enjoy! :)

Q: What is your date of birth?

A: July fifteen.

Q: What year?

A: Every year.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?

A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?

A: Yes.

Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?

A: I forget.

Q: You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: How old is your son, the one living with you?

A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.

Q: How long has he lived with you?

A: Forty-five years.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?

A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"

Q: And why did that upset you?

A: My name is Susan.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: And where was the location of the accident?

A: Approximately milepost 499.

Q: And where is milepost 499?

A: Probably between milepost 498 and 500.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Sir, what is your IQ?

A: Well, I can see pretty well, I think.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Did you blow your horn or anything?

A: After the accident?

Q: Before the accident.

A: Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?

A: Yes.

Q: Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did she say?

A: What disco am I at?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about
it until the next morning?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Was it you or your younger brother who was killed in the war?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Did he kill you?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: You were there until the time you left, is that true?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: How many times have you committed suicide?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?

A: Yes.

Q: And what were you doing at that time?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: She had three children, right?

A: Yes.

Q: How many were boys?

A: None.

Q: Were there any girls?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: You say the stairs went down to the basement?

A: Yes.

Q: And these stairs, did they go up also?

--------------------------------------------------

Q: Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn't you?

A: I went to Europe, Sir.

Q: And you took your new wife?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: How was your first marriage terminated?

A: By death.

Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Can you describe the individual?

A: He was about medium height and had a beard.

Q: Was this a male, or a female?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice
which I sent to your attorney?

A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?

A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: All your responses must be oral, OK? What school did you go to?

A: Oral.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?

A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.

Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?

A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an
autopsy.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?

---------------------------------------------------

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for blood pressure?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for breathing?

A: No.

Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began
the autopsy?

A: No.

Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?

A: It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: You were not shot in the fracas?

A: No, I was shot midway between the fracas and the navel

-------------------------------------------------------

Until next time. :P

Sorry about my inactivity of late. Is not like me to not to comment on my friend's blog... However, lately, for about 3 weeks I had been very busy and will be for another two.

So... Thomas Crown is not dead nor bored of GS or anything else you may or may not think or think otherwise.

I will be back soon.

Once again, sorry about that.

Until next time. (Hopefully, in two weeks.) :P